Roger,
At this point I'm wondering whether "making an asynchronous
component out of synchronous components" is a requirement, or
just a sort of parlor trick. How important is it? It seems to be
distracting from the goal of separating out the various meanings
that have clung to the 'sync' terminology, and don't belong there.
Also we now have to beware the distinction between synchronous
and synchronized, the latter being the subject of Arkin's
formalisms. Synchronous is an option once you have a shared
clock; synchronizing is about getting the clock shared.
If pushed to it, I can offer to build some models that demonstrate
what people think is synchronous, asynchronous, etc. I don't
like doing it, and I can't do it alone because I still don't
grok all the myriad (mis)applications folks are making of these terms.
But it's possible.
Walden
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
To: "Walden Mathews" <waldenm@optonline.net>; "Ugo Corda"
<UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>; <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:24 PM
Subject: RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
> That's a really good idea. Using your suggestions from
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Feb/0300.html:
>
> If synchronous means "blocking", then it you block you block -- you
> cannot create an unblocked interaction out of blocking interactions --
> so under that meaning you can't build an asynch out of synch's.
>
> If synchronous means solicited, then again I don't see how one can
> combine solicited messages to create an unsolicited one.
>
> If, however, synchronous means "relatively short time" (which most
> people on this thread seem to think is not a good idea), then I guess
> you can put together a bunch of messages that take a short time into a
> whole that takes a long time. This seems, however, relatively trivial
> and maybe it illustrates why people don't seem to like the "short time"
> approach.
>
> Even if you go to Mr. Arkin's rather formal definition which, if I
> understand it, says that a message is synchronous if it is possible for
> people on the two ends to agree what time it is -- it still seems to me
> that if you compose a message out of a bunch of messages where you know
> what time it is, in the composite it still should be possible to figure
> out what time it is.
>
> Sooooo -- I am really wondering how one can make an asynchronous message
> out of synchronous components.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walden Mathews [mailto:waldenm@optonline.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:48 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
>
>
> Er, especially if no one agrees on what these terms actually mean. Ugo,
> would it be possible for you to restate what you said below without
> using either 'synch' term? Maybe if each of us tried that once or twice
> we might get to a better place?
>
> WM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
> To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>;
> <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:38 PM
> Subject: RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
>
>
> >
> > >Incidentally, in one of the earlier go-arounds on this subject I
> > >believe that it was pointed out that one can build a synchronous
> > >interaction out of asynchronous components.
> >
> > And vice-versa, one could build an asynchronous interaction out of
> synchronous components.
> >
> > Ugo
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>